Listening to Patients

RECENT POSTS

I Never Expected To Love My Kids’ Sex Ed Course, But I Do

Oh boy... (Romana Klee/Flickr)

Oh boy… (Romana Klee/Flickr)

Truth is, I dreaded my children’s sexual education.

I’d read that parents can be a powerful force for smarts about sex, so I’d tried to script imaginary heart-to-hearts. But in my head, they all sounded like this: “Please don’t do these incredibly stupid things that I did when I was young.”

So I procrastinated, abetted by the younger generation’s point-blank refusal to let me even broach this most awkward of topics. Then, last year, word came home that middle-school health class would use a curriculum called “Get Real” that involved extensive family homework activities.

“Now I’m in for it,” I thought.

But in fact, I was in for a shockingly pleasant surprise — one that more and more parents may experience in the coming years if Get Real’s popularity continues to grow. As of this year, it has been adopted by 200 schools in seven states — 175 of them in Massachusetts. That’s up from 132 schools in 2012.

And in recent months, Get Real has scored two victories: An analysis by the Wellesley Centers for Women reported that students who go through Get Real do become likelier to delay sex, and the federal government put it on a list of “evidence-based” sex-ed programs.

No way is Get Real, which was created by the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, for everybody. It strongly promotes abstinence as the healthiest choice for young people, but it’s not the sort of “abstinence-only” program that many parents and schools seek; it also includes teachings on birth control and preventing infection.

But perhaps more than any other curriculum out there, it pulls parents into the sex-ed endeavor, and here’s my pleasant surprise: It wasn’t awkward.

The Get Real homework prompted conversations about friendships, about feelings, about life lessons. I got to reminisce about my first crush, and talk about how important I think it is to stand up for yourself with a boyfriend or girlfriend. I even got to vent about how perniciously relationships are portrayed in that detestable high-school-girl series, “Pretty Little Liars.”

Sure, the course teaches intimate anatomy and the changes of puberty, but the body part it seemed to focus on most was the heart. It was teaching — well, love. Or rather, the skills that can make love better. Healthier. Skills like self-awareness and communication — useful in their own right, and also in service of sex-ed goals like preventing pregnancy and infections.

“We believe that if young people are able to develop healthy relationships in all aspects of their lives, they’re going to be that much better able to negotiate healthy sexual relationships,” says Jen Slonaker, vice president of education and training at the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts.

“The sad truth is that by the time young people get to college, it may be too late.”

– Nicole Cushman,
of sex-education organization Answer, on rape prevention

At this national moment of rising discussion about campus rape — from “Missoula” to this week’s New Hampshire prep school trial — the need for such skills has never seemed more urgent. And they take time to develop, says Nicole Cushman, executive director of Answer, a national sex-education organization based at Rutgers University.

“When people talk about sexual assault and rape prevention on college campuses,” she says, “the sad truth is that by the time young people get to college, it may be too late, because we haven’t really laid the groundwork by teaching them these basic concepts about communication and relationships from a younger age. So I really believe that comprehensive sex education is sexual assault prevention.”

‘Red Flags’

Ashley, a Boston high school senior who is on the Get Real Teen Council, went through the curriculum beginning in middle school but says she really started seeing its effects when she got to high school.

“I know that what I learned in Get Real classes made me see certain red flags in my friends’ relationships and my own relationships, and helped me solve what I need to do in order to get away from the red flags,” she says.

One friend who took the class with her drew on it to resist sexual pressure, Ashley says: “She didn’t know if she was ready to have sex, and she touched upon the consent part — she was like, ‘I don’t have to do this, necessarily. It’s like — consent. It’s not fair. I don’t have to engage.’ ” Continue reading

Related:

Sleep Alert: Bright Screens May Be More Disruptive For Tweens and Young Teens, Study Finds

If you’re the parent of a school-age child, you are probably thinking about sleep these days. More specifically, you may be wondering how you will possibly get your child back on a sleep schedule for school after a summer of late nights and mornings sleeping in.

Here’s one tip, based on a recent study on sleep led by researchers at Brown University: Get rid of bright screens at night. Especially if your child is a young teen or tween.

(Robin Lubbock/WBUR)

(Robin Lubbock/WBUR)

The study, published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, found that children between the ages of 9 and 15 in the early stages of puberty were particularly sensitive to light at night compared to older teens.

Researchers conclude: “The increased sensitivity to light in younger adolescents suggests that exposure to evening light could be particularly disruptive to sleep regulation for this group.”

From the Brown news release:

In lab experiments, an hour of nighttime light exposure suppressed their production of the sleep-timing hormone melatonin significantly more than the same light exposure did for teens aged 11 to 16 who were farther into puberty.

The brighter the light in the experiments, the more melatonin was suppressed. Continue reading

Study: Kids Are Dumping Fruits And Veggies Offered At School — But Don’t Give Up Yet

A study found that students put more fruits and vegetables on their trays, as required, but consumed fewer of them and increased waste by approximately 56 percent. (Courtesy of Sally McCay/UVM Photography)

A study found that students put more fruits and vegetables on their trays, as required, but consumed fewer of them and increased waste by approximately 56 percent. (Courtesy of Sally McCay/UVM Photography)

File this one under: You can lead a horse to water…

Researchers at the University of Vermont report what they characterize as a “heartbreaking” finding: Many schoolkids are trashing the fruits and vegetables they are now served as part of a federal law that was supposed to nudge the kids toward healthier food choices.

The study, published online in the journal Public Health, concludes that kids are putting more fruits and vegetables on their trays, as required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (which took effect in 2012 and was championed by First Lady Michelle Obama). However, the children ate fewer of these items after the law took effect and often dumped the produce straight into the trash.

“It was heartbreaking to see so many students toss fruits and vegetables into the trash right after exiting the lunch line,” Sarah Amin, Ph.D, a UVM researcher in nutrition and food sciences and the study’s lead author, said in an interview.

For the study, researchers captured before-and-after images of school lunches. (Courtesy)

For the study, researchers captured before-and-after images of school lunches. (Courtesy)

As part of the study, researchers captured images of kids’ school lunches before they ate and then again right before they dumped uneaten foods into the trash. So, for instance, the child might choose a school lunch (pictured on the left) of chicken nuggets, mac and cheese, green beans and milk. But, when the child is done eating, it’s clear the greens beens remain untouched.

The study concludes:

Children consumed fewer (fruits and vegetables) FVs and wasted more FVs during the school year immediately following implementation of the USDA rule that required them to take one fruit or vegetable at lunch. Average waste increased from one-quarter cup to more than one-third of a cup/tray, with about one-eighth cup/tray more FVs discarded, or a total of about 56 cups/day/school (based on an average of 400 lunches served/day).

Researcher Amin, who will soon begin a post doctorate fellowship at Tufts, said that while the initial findings might seem disheartening and show some unintended consequences of the federal law, it’s worth remaining hopeful.

She pointed out that “this was the first update to these regulations in 15 years and kids were really acclimated to how the environment was before,” and not used to choosing either one fruit or one vegetable with lunch.

“Maybe you can’t just put these foods in front of them and expect them to eat,” she said. “But it may just be too soon.”

For younger kids entering kindergarten, for example, “this may work,” Amin said, because it’s all the children know. “But for older kids used to the old system, this may rock their world because they’re just not used to it.

“I still think the guidelines [which are up for reauthorization next month] are necessary,” she said. “We have a childhood obesity epidemic and the guidelines were put in place to address it. … A little bit of waste at the get go may be a sacrifice we have to make for the health and well being of children in the long term.” Continue reading

Related:

Workout Supplements: Does Overuse Signal An Eating Disorder Among Men?

(USMC/Flickr)

(USMC/Flickr)

By Marina Renton
CommonHealth Intern

You’ve seen them at the gym: extremely body conscious men, driven to achieve a level of physical perfection through grueling workouts.

Well, new research suggests that overusing popular supplements like whey protein and creatine to improve workout performance may signal an emerging eating disorder.

Researchers presented their findings at the American Psychological Association’s annual convention in Toronto earlier this month.

Almost 200 18- to 65-year-old men who consumed legal appearance- and performance-enhancing drugs (APEDs) and worked out at least twice a week participated in the study, led by co-authors Richard Achiro and Peter Theodore, both from the California School of Professional Psychology at Alliant International University, Los Angeles. In addition to asking about their supplement use and eating habits, researchers surveyed the participants about their psychological well-being, asking about their body image, self-esteem and gender role conflicts.

Almost 30 percent of the people surveyed said they were worried about their supplement use. Over 40 percent had increased their supplement intake over time. Twenty-two percent said they consumed the supplements instead of a meal, even when that wasn’t their intended use. Eight percent had been advised by their doctor to curb their use of supplements, and 3 percent had been hospitalized for kidney or liver problems stemming from their supplement intake.

Continue reading

Cut Your Risk Of Alzheimer’s? Growing Evidence Says Maybe You Can — Modestly

Alexis McKenzie, right, executive director of The Methodist Home of the District of Columbia Forest Side, an Alzheimer’s assisted-living facility, puts her hand on the arm of resident Catherine Peake, in Washington, Feb. 6, 2012. (Charles Dharapak/AP)

Alexis McKenzie, right, executive director of The Methodist Home of the District of Columbia Forest Side, an Alzheimer’s assisted-living facility, puts her hand on the arm of resident Catherine Peake, in Washington, Feb. 6, 2012. (Charles Dharapak/AP)

It was the “two-thirds” in the press release headline that grabbed me: “Nine risk factors may contribute to two thirds of Alzheimer’s cases worldwide.”

So of course I read more about the new study:

Nine potentially modifiable risk factors may contribute to up to two thirds of Alzheimer’s disease cases worldwide, suggests an analysis of the available evidence, published online in the Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.

The analysis indicates the complexity of Alzheimer’s disease development and just how varied the risk factors for it are. But the researchers suggest that preventive strategies, targeting diet, drugs, body chemistry, mental health, pre-existing disease, and lifestyle may help to stave off dementia. This could be particularly important, given that, as yet, there is no cure, they say.

How I wish this meant that we can reduce our risk of Alzheimer’s by two-thirds. But no matter how I mangle the statistics, it doesn’t. Here’s what it does suggest, according to Dr. James Hendrix, director of global science initiatives for the Alzheimer’s Association: that for up to two-thirds of people who have Alzheimer’s, these modifiable risk factors may have contributed to it, and probably to when they got it.

“So,” he says, “if you were going to get Alzheimer’s, because maybe you had a genetic predisposition, and you take very good care of yourself, maybe you don’t get it until you’re 85 or 95. But if you smoke or you’re overweight or don’t exercise, maybe you get Alzheimer’s at 75. That’s really what this says — these could be contributing factors to if you get Alzheimer’s or when you get Alzheimer’s. It increases your risk.”

Of course, we’ve been hearing for years — at least since those smart Minnesota nuns got famous in 2001 — about how mental challenges like crossword puzzles could be linked to lower Alzheimer’s risk. But this latest paper seems part of a broad shift based on growing evidence about a far greater array of “modifiable risk factors.”

Exhibit No. 1: This summer, the Alzheimer’s Association ran a campaign on “10 Ways to Love Your Brain,” encouraging people to exercise, keep learning and quit smoking, among other advice. Exhibit No. 2: A round-up paper in the journal Alzheimer’s & Dementia laying out the levels of evidence on which lifestyle and health changes could protect people against Alzheimer’s.

The findings are relentlessly commonsensical: Many of the usual suspects that we already know are good for our health — exercise, heart-healthy diet, sleep, weight and blood pressure control — also appear to help fend off Alzheimer’s.

I asked Dr. Gad Marshall — a neurologist and associate medical director of clinical trials at the Center for Alzheimer Research and Treatment at Brigham and Women’s Hospital — how he’d respond to a neighbor who says, “Hey, I hear I can really move the needle on my risk of Alzheimer’s!” Continue reading

Related:

Shameful Operating Room Moments: Medical Journal On Calling Out ‘Dirtball’ Doctors

(Just Us 3/Flickr)

An essay published in the Annals of Internal Medicine begs the question: How many of us are being mocked and crudely disrespected while we’re at our most vulnerable? (Just Us 3/Flickr)

Imagine this scene:

A female patient under general anesthesia is being prepped for a vaginal hysterectomy. As the attending doctor washes and scrubs her labia and inner thighs, he turns to a medical student and says: “I bet she’s enjoying this.” Then he winks and laughs.

No, this account doesn’t come from a racy British tabloid. It was published this week in a reputable medical journal, Annals of Internal Medicine.

The account, written by an anonymous doctor and titled “Our Family Secrets,” also describes an incident involving an obstetric patient, Mrs. Lopez, who experienced hemorrhaging and other complications after childbirth. To stop the bleeding and ultimately save the patient, her doctor performs what is called an “internal bimanual uterine massage,” which means he must get his entire hand inside her vagina. From the piece:

“…something happened that I’ll never forget. Dr. Canby raises his right hand into the air. He starts to sing ‘La Cucaracha.’ He sings, ‘La Cucaracha, la cucaracha, dada, dada, dada-daaa.’ It looks like he is dancing with her. He stomps his feet, twists his body, and waves his right arm above his head. All the while, he holds her, his whole hand still inside her vagina. He starts laughing. He keeps dancing. And then he looks at me. I begin to sway to his beat. My feet shuffle. I hum and laugh along with him. Moments later, the anesthesiologist yells, ‘Knock it off, assholes!’ And we stop.”

Stomach Churning

Dr. Christine Laine, editor in chief of Annals of Internal Medicine, said this is the first time in her tenure that such a profanity has been printed in the journal. But, she said in an interview, it seemed appropriate in this case. When she first read the essay she says it made her “stomach churn,” and it made her angry.

“Angry for the patients … angry for the younger physicians who encountered this behavior, angry at myself and others who have witnessed colleagues being disrespectful to patients but were too timid to speak out,” Laine said.

In an accompanying editorial condemning the behavior described in the essay, Laine and her colleagues wrote: “The first incident reeked of misogyny and disrespect — the second reeked of all that plus heavy overtones of sexual assault and racism.”

So how did this series of unfortunate medical events unfold?

Here’s the backstory: The anonymous author of the essay (the journal decided to keep the doctor’s identity a secret) was leading a course on medical humanities for senior medical students. The topic was “the virtue of forgiveness.” At one point the doctor put a question to the class: “Do any of you have someone to forgive from your clinical experiences? Did anything ever happen that you need to forgive or perhaps still can’t forgive?” Continue reading

Carter’s Cancer: Melanoma Is ‘Bad’ Skin Cancer, But Better To Have Now Than Past

Former President Jimmy Carter discusses his cancer diagnosis at the Carter Center in Atlanta, on Thursday. Carter, 90, said the cancer has spread to his brain, and he will undergo radiation treatment at Emory University Hospital. (Phil Skinner/AP)

Former President Jimmy Carter discusses his cancer diagnosis at the Carter Center in Atlanta, on Thursday. Carter, 90, said the cancer has spread to his brain, and he will undergo radiation treatment at Emory University Hospital. (Phil Skinner/AP)

Ninety-year-old former President Jimmy Carter announced Thursday morning that he’s being treated for melanoma, and the cancer has been found in his brain and liver.

My reaction: “Melanoma? Isn’t that supposed to start with weird spots on your skin?”

I turned to Dr. Elizabeth Buchbinder, melanoma expert at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Our conversation, lightly edited:

So is our popular conception of melanoma — odd, mole-like things on sun-hit skin — not consonant with reality?

So often, when people think of skin cancer, they think of the more traditional basal cell, squamous cell, where you go in to the dermatologist, they cut it off, maybe you need to get a little bit of liquid nitrogen, or something else, but really, once they’ve done that, the risk in terms of it affecting your survival or anything else is very low. They’re really very controllable cancers.

Melanoma is kind of the exact opposite of that. It’s the real bad actor among the skin cancers, because melanoma likes to get into the blood and spread. It likes to go anywhere it wants in the body. Some of the places it likes to particularly go are the liver and the brain. It can also go into the lungs and other areas of the body. It’s kind of the ‘bad boy’ of the skin cancers; it’s definitely a bad actor in terms of cancers in general, but then also in terms of skin cancers as a group.

And you can have melanoma without ever having seen a spot?

First of all, melanomas predominantly arise on the skin and are most commonly associated with sun or UV exposure. However, they can arise in areas of the skin that never see the sun. They can also arise on other membranes that are not visible; for example, the inside of the mouth or the inside of the intestine. They can also arise within the eye.

“Melanoma treatment is so exciting right now. The real cutting-edge is basically using the immune system to fight the cancer itself.”

– Dr. Elizabeth Buchbinder,
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute

Although most of them arise on skin that are seen, some melanomas may arise on the skin and never necessarily be detected. We have a fair rate of what’s called ‘unknown primary,’ where we never find that skin spot, and one of the thoughts is that that skin spot either has been attacked by the person’s own immune system and kind of gotten rid of, or that something else has happened; it’s been scraped off or itched, or who knows? It just never was found. So there’s some rate of that.

And so what is the cutting-edge of melanoma research and treatment now?

Melanoma treatment is so exciting right now. The real, real cutting-edge is basically using the immune system to fight the cancer itself. What we’ve known for a long time is that the immune system has a relationship with cancer, and sometimes can keep it from growing or prevent new cancers from forming, but often the cancer kind of overcomes that somehow. And what’s happened with new treatments and with new research and understanding of how the immune system works is we’ve been able to use medications to make the immune system attack the cancer. Continue reading

Related:

Possible Key To Weight Loss? Researchers Find ‘Master Switch’ To Crank Up Fat-Burning

Researchers say new science on a “metabolic master switch"  may hold the promise of someday making a dent in the obesity epidemic. (Courtesy UConn Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity)

Researchers say new science on a “metabolic master switch” may hold the promise of someday making a dent in the obesity epidemic. (Courtesy UConn Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity)

Here’s my fantasy: I’ve overindulged — let’s say, purely theoretically, on Cape Cod fried clams, french fries and beer — and would normally face the greasy regret and resign myself to extra carrots and cardio in the days to come.

But no. Instead, I simply pop a pill that cranks up my metabolism for a few hours so that I burn the extra calories instead of storing them as fat. I don’t gain an ounce.

That’s a very distant prospect. But new science on a “metabolic master switch,” just out in the New England Journal of Medicine, brings my dream one step closer to reality — and, researchers say, may hold the promise of someday making a dent in the obesity epidemic.

Until now, weight-loss treatments have focused on altering appetite and exercise, says MIT computer science professor Manolis Kellis, senior author on the paper. Now, “what we have in our hands is a third knob, if you wish, for controlling body fat,” he says. “It’s working directly on your fat cells to reprogram them to burn more energy rather than to store it as fat.”

In normal-weight mice, Kellis says, the effects of turning that knob are dramatic: “By changing the expression of one gene in these mice, they lose 50 percent of their body weight. You can feed them all the fat you want and they will not take on weight. They do not exercise more and they do not eat less, what they do is simply burn more energy when they’re awake, or even in their sleep.”

Dr. Melina Claussnitzer is lead author on the fat-burning paper just out in the New England Journal of Medicine. (Courtesy of Lovely Valentine)

Dr. Melina Claussnitzer (Courtesy of Lovely Valentine)

But mice are not men, of course. Could this work in humans?

“We experimented on human fat cells,” says Melina Claussnitzer, first author of the paper, a visiting professor at MIT and faculty member at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. “And we found that we could flip them from energy-storing to energy-burning by altering the expression of a single gene — and, even more remarkably, by altering a single letter from our 3-billion-letter genome. And we could flip that switch back in either direction.”

Still, it’s a very long way from genetically editing human cells in a Petri dish to altering the metabolism of a breathing human, the researchers caution. The team has filed patents on their switch-flipping manipulations and are seeking to commercialize the approach and lead it into human clinical trials, Kellis says, but cannot speculate on a time frame.

So meanwhile, there’s no such thing as a free fried clam. But we can at least savor the story of how this cutting-edge science came to be.

Let’s begin in 2007, when researchers turned up the first genetic link to obesity, a region of the genome called FTO. To this day, it remains the strongest genome-obesity link: Some 44 percent of Europeans, it turns out, have a version that predisposes them to weigh more, on average five to seven pounds.

The natural next question was: How does it work? Does it make people eat more? Move less? Both?

Or neither, says Claussnitzer. “Despite seven years of intense efforts to hunt down a mechanism, no link has been made between the genetic differences in the region and altered functions in the brain.” Continue reading

Related:

Women’s Health World Abuzz On ‘Pink Viagra’ Approval, But Are Expectations Realistic?

In this June 22 photo, a tablet of Flibanserin sits on a brochure for Sprout Pharmaceuticals in the company's Raleigh, N.C., headquarters. (Allen G. Breed/AP)

In this June 22 photo, a tablet of Flibanserin sits on a brochure for Sprout Pharmaceuticals in the company’s Raleigh, N.C., headquarters. (Allen G. Breed/AP)

Everyone, it seems, has an opinion on the FDA’s approval this week of the drug Flibanserin, aka “pink Viagra,” to boost women’s sexual desire.

“This is the biggest breakthrough for women’s sexual health since the pill,” Sally Greenberg, executive director of the National Consumers League, told The New York Times.

Others have their doubts. Cindy Pearson, of the National Women’s Health Network, told NPR that approval of the drug “is a triumph of marketing over science” and added: “To have any chance of benefit from this drug they’re going to have to take it every day for months on end, years…We just don’t know what the long-term effects will be of changing brain chemistry in this way.”

Janet Woodcock, M.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), said the approval “provides women distressed by their low sexual desire with an approved treatment option…The FDA strives to protect and advance the health of women, and we are committed to supporting the development of safe and effective treatments for female sexual dysfunction.”

The drug, which will be sold under the brand name Addyi, is expected to go on sale Oct. 17, according to its maker, Sprout Pharmaceuticals. And along with the potential to ignite a low (or non-existent) libido among some women, the drug comes with a boxed warning, the strongest kind, on contraindications and potential side effects, including low blood pressure, fainting, nausea, dizziness and sleepiness.

Here’s more on the site Throb, about how the drug actually works.

Still others have extreme doubts.

Emily Nagoski, a feminist sex educator and author of the book “Come As You Are,” wrote a smart, thoughtful piece on the site Medium about why Flibanserin isn’t addressing the true nature of women’s sexual desires. Here’s a bit of that piece, called: “Pleasure is the Measure:”

I believe that the folks at Sprout Pharmaceuticals — the company that owns Flibanserin, the so-called “pink viagra” — have good intentions. I believe that they want to help women who are struggling with sexual desire.

And I believe that they feel sure — as most people do— that lack of spontaneous, out-of-the-blue desire for sex is a problem. A disease.

They are wrong — as you now know.

It’s not their fault, really, that they’re wrong. Cindy Whitehead, Sprout CEO, isn’t a sex researcher, educator, or therapist. She’s a marketing professional, and she’s darn good at her job. But why would she believe anything except what mainstream culture taught her?

In fact the drug is designed — they’ve said explicitly — as though responsive desire were a disease, as though spontaneous desire were the only “normal” way to experience desire.

And that’s a problem. Continue reading

Related:

Where Does Life Begin, And Other Tough Abortion Questions For Doctors In Training

Our recent post on how residents training to be OB-GYNs think about providing abortions (or not providing them) went viral earlier this month and triggered a broader conversation among readers. The topic was also featured on Radio Boston and WBUR’s All Things Considered.

I asked Janet Singer, a nurse midwife on the faculty of Brown University’s obstetrics-gynecology residency program, and the person who organized the initial discussion among the residents, to follow up. She, in turn, ​asked Jennifer Villavicencio, a third-year resident​, to lead a discussion digging even more deeply into the topic.

Two of the residents ​in the discussion ​perform abortions, two have chosen not to do so. ​But they are colleagues and friends who have found a way to talk about this divisive issue in a respectful and productive way. ​Here, edited, is ​a transcript of ​their discussion, which gets to the heart of a particularly fraught question: When does life truly begin? ​Three of the residents have asked that their names not be included, for fear of hostility or violence aimed at abortion providers.

Jennifer Villavicencio (Resident 3): Let’s talk about a woman who comes in, has broken her water and is about 20 to 21 weeks pregnant and after counseling from both her obstetricians and the neonatologist [a special pediatrician who takes care of very sick newborns] has opted for an abortion. Let’s talk about how we each approach these patients.

Resident 2: As a non-abortion provider I will start just by saying that a patient of this nature in some ways is on one extreme of the spectrum. As an obstetrician, I view the loss of her pregnancy as an inevitability. I think we would all agree with that. So, taking part in the termination [another word for abortion] of her pregnancy is different to me than doing that for someone whose pregnancy, but for my involvement, would continue in a healthy and normal fashion.

Opponents and supporters of an abortion bill hold signs outside the Texas Capitol on July 9 in Austin. (Eric Gay/AP)

Opponents and supporters of an abortion bill hold signs outside the Texas Capitol on July 9 in Austin. (Eric Gay/AP)

JV: Would your opinion change if she were 22 or 23 weeks and theoretically could make it to viability [the concept that a fetus could survive outside of the mother. Currently, in the U.S., the generally accepted definition of viability is 24 weeks gestation or approximately six months pregnant]?

Resident 2: Personally, it wouldn’t, because I feel there is a very slim chance of an intact survival [refers to an infant not having significant mental or disabilities] of an infant. If she were 22 or 23 weeks gestation and could potentially make it to the point of a survivable child, that likelihood is so rare. But for my involvement, she will still lose this pregnancy. My point is, if I help terminate this pregnancy, I am not playing an integral role in the loss of this pregnancy. I feel that supporting her in proceeding in the safest possible way, protecting her while accepting the loss of her pregnancy, is my job.

Future Health Of The Child

JV: Does the future health of the child really play a role in it for you?

Continue reading